A dark new dawn for identity politics

Last week my postpresidential election column earned the headline “The Bright Side of Trump”, which was accurate insofar as there are certain positive developments about Donald Trump’s election and the defeat of the Clinton machine. My assessment of Trump himself though hasn’t changed, and there is much to be apprehensive about, even if the apocalyptic shrieking in some quarters is, at best, premature.

That said, and leaving for the future the merits of specific policies, the election bodes ill in regard to two long-standing trends in the culture of American politics.

The first, dating back to Watergate, is criminal prosecution as politics by other means. The administration of President Barack Obama was exceptional, and praiseworthy, in not giving rise to the scandals that result in hearings, subpoenas, plea bargains and convictions. Had Hillary Clinton been victorious, the prominent role that criminal investigations played in her campaign would likely have followed her into the White House, as she would have had to answer for the influence-peddling that took place at the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state.

With Trump, it may not be about the past — though who knows what dubious business deals he may have conducted in the corrupt world of municipal real estate? — but it is certainly about the present. Unless he completely sells his business, and not just hands it over to the management of his children — there will be perpetual conflicts of interest, inviting politicized prosecutors and prosecution-exploiting politicians to investigate, rightfully so in some cases.

That problem will begin just hours after his inauguration, when the parade from the Capitol to the White House (1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) will pass by the new Trump International Hotel (1100 Pennsylvania Ave.).

It would be odd if the new president didn’t stop by his own hotel. Yet he leases the Old Post Office building from the federal government. Would he be visiting as landlord or tenant, customer or proprietor? If the federal government holds a meeting there, do a few dollars make their way into Trump’s pocket?

The problem is deeper still, in that Trump doesn’t so much own a business as he is a business. Should he maintain any stake in the Trump enterprises, why wouldn’t a foreign state decide to give generous tax treatment, or direct subsidies, to Trump developments?

Even hosting meetings at Trump Tower or his golf course, as he has been doing since his election, is commercially advantageous to him. Unless Trump takes decisive action to sever himself and his family entirely from commercial endeavours, his presidency will be plagued by America’s prosecutorial instinct, already inflamed by the many who regard him as somehow illegitimate.

A second negative trend that Trump’s election exacerbates is that of identity politics. Watching American election coverage has a touch of genteel apartheid about it. Discussion is dominated by race — there are still some black counties to be counted — or sex or religion or education or some more finely carved demographic segment. It’s all about identity, which means politics is less about persuading than it is about pandering.

After 2012, the Democrats crowed that the decreasingly white electorate gave them an increasing lock on the presidency, given the lack of diversity in black and Latino voting patterns. The Republican response was largely to agree.

Trump proved them wrong, at least for this election, and the lesson that many will take is that identity politics works and simply needs to be extended to white voters at large, who can now be thought of as the nation’s largest identity group.

Obama burst on the national scene in 2004 with his stirring invocation of an America beyond red states and blue states, but simply united states. Twelve years